The court held that the petitioners could not claim rights to land classified as Government Poramboke due to the suppression of a material rectification deed, emphasizing the finality of orders under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estate Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners in both writ petitions challenge the order of the first respondent dated 27.12.2019.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.6252 of 2022, Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.26886 of 2024, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents in W.P.(MD)No.6252 of 2022 and respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(MD)No.26886 of 2024 and Mrs.Devi Saravana Priya, learned counsel for the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.26886 of 2024. I have also gone through the records, including the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

3. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.6252 of 2022 is that the petitioners 1 to 4 have purchased portion of property comprised in survey No.87/1, under registered sale deed dated 09.02.1990, from one Mahalingam. According to the petitioners, who are represented by the deponent, the power agent one, Sakkarai Mohamed, the petitioners are in absolute in possession and enjoyment of subject property and they were also issued patta bearing No.1177.

4. It is the further case of petitioners that the estate of Kalanivasal was taken over Tamil Nadu Inam Estate Act 26 of 1963 and Ryotwari settlement was introduced in the year 1965. According to the petitioners, it was only the Inam Abolition Tribunal that had jurisdiction and rightly the Tribunal has passed final orders in R.A.No.1 of 1987 dated 08.01.1988. The order granting patta in the said proceedings became final, with no further appeal having been preferred before the Special Appellate Tribunal. Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that in terms of Section 46 of the Act 26 of 1963, finality was reached and the said order cannot be questioned at this distance of time and that too by the first respondent, in and by the order impugned in the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and therefore contended that the order was clearly vitiated. He would further contend that no proper notices were issued to the petitioners, before passing the impugned order and there has been a deprivation of a fair opportunity to contest the notice / enquiry proceedings. He would further submit that there is violation of Rule 31 of the Board Standing Order as well as Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act .

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in K. Kamala and Ors. Vs. The Executive Officer Arulmighu Nandeeswaraswamy Devasthanam Adambakkam and Ors. 2024 (2) CTC 336 and another judgment of this Court in Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Vs. S. Kanagaraj and Ors. 2023 MHC 1751.

7. Relying on the said decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that any order passed under the Act, subject to appeal or revision as provided under the Act would become final and the correctness or otherwise of the same cannot be called in question in any Court of law and what has been saved is only jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title, based on the existing rights of the parties.

8. Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.26886 of 2024, would contend that the petitioners are residing in survey No.87/1, Kalanivasal village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. According to the petitioners, the said lands were classified as “Government Dry Lands” only and after UDR settlement, in a Court auction sale in E.P. No.188/1971 in execution of decree in O.S.No.212 of 1966, a sale certificate was issued to one Anbumani, S/o.Subbiah Ambalam, who in turn conveyed the lands to one Mahalingam, under a registered sale deed, vide document No.176/1975. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners refuting the claim of the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.6252 of 2022 would submit that the said sale deed was subsequently rectified by the vendo